Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

[Artie]

I started to PM you this, but thought that maybe others would find the answer useful too: (Of course, anyone may answer.)

If I have a real "hot" output pickup, like a Distortion, or a Full Shred, or a Dimebucker, etc., and I want to lower the output but still maintain the basic sound characteristics of the p'up, are we talking about something as simple as putting a carefully selected resistor in series with the p'up? Or perhaps an inductor? Or an RCL, or "pi" network?

Or is it more complex than that? Or not do-able?

Your thoughts . . . :22:

 

[Kent S.]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

I started to PM you this, but thought that maybe others would find the answer useful too: (Of course, anyone may answer.)

If I have a real "hot" output pickup, like a Distortion, or a Dimebucker, etc., and I want to lower the output but still maintain the basic sound characteristics of the p'up, are we talking about something as simple as putting a carefully selected resistor in series with the p'up? Or perhaps an inductor? Or an RCL, or "pi" network?

Or is it more complex than that? Or not do-able?

Your thoughts . . . :22:

Notice I omitted the Full Dead pup, bright and no gain ... sheesh!,
An inductor will just choke down the highs in series, the resistor is still going to damp the resonant peak, and won't do much for the volume, whether it's in series, or as a parallel shunt to ground doesn't matter (well it does depending on other things, but lets not go there), if you envision the voltage divider your changing one side of it, whether it's the series resistance branch, or the parallel shunt. RCL, nah wouldn't use it, no reason to ... and it would change your tone. The Pi configuration I have never used, if you are referring to a T vs and L pad, I've never tried them, and I'm not greatly familiar with them, they seem to crop up more in speaker attenuators (like on PA cabs or old home stereos).
The thing that worked for me was a compensated pad (pad used in the context of a pad switch ... ie like on an amp channel) ... a Trim pot set with a simple cap across it, the assembly was disconnected via a switch ... it served as a -6dB pad (or whatever attenuation level, and the cap value was selected to preserve the high end). It was switched out of course to prevent extra loading of course.
The real way to do it would be to build a voltage divider from two resistors ... first figure out how much drop you need via a regular volume pot. Then measure the resistances involved, the series, the shunt to ground, etc. Then figure the ratios of the resistances to each other ... because you aren't going to use those values, just their ratios. Figure what values would give you the same load to ground as you have with your volume at *10* and with the resistor based voltage divider in place ...
Unfortunately it's still not that simple,as when you turn down your volume control it changes the ratios that you established, plus since the volume control is still in parallel with the parallel portion of the V Divider ... well you start to see where this is going, for a full out at *10* setting, it's doable (I think) ... however I have found the trim pot/cap trick to work very well, just use a high valued trimpot, and a small cap.
Of course lowering the pups works also, if it's not that much that needs changing, I think doubling the distance of the pup from the strings is like
6dB drop (inverse square law). Then there is active buffering and mixing ... :saeek:

 

[Artie]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

Heh . . . I knew there'ld be complications. :laugh2:

Actually, it sounds as though just lowering the pup into the pickguard is probably the best solution. Thanks Kent.

 

[sanrafael]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

I would agree with lowering it. Especially if the reason the output is high is because of strong magnets. Lowering it will give a cleaner sound; I consider that a benefit, but you might or might not want that, its a matter of what you need for your playing. The pup with very strong magnets, when adjusted lower for the same 'cleanness' as a pickup with normal strength magnets, will give a lower level.

 

[Kent S.]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

Heh . . . I knew there'ld be complications. :laugh2:

Actually, it sounds as though just lowering the pup into the pickguard is probably the best solution. Thanks Kent.

Imagine my surprise when I simply said, well I'll wire two resistors in a 1:1 values (giving me a 2:1 ratio) and that will give me the 6dB pad I want ... sure it will pal! ... If it wasn't for that volume knob sitting there.
I still like my trimpot/cap deal ... I set the amp up with the pad in (I due have the cap set to make it just a bit brighter than normal, which is good becuase of the extra loading. That's my normal sound, and then when I want a boost I switch it out. Works great, plus I still have volume control use at anytime.
I got the idea from the pad switch on some amps, and from the 0dB and -6dB inputs on the old Fender amps ... except it always ticked me that the padded (-6dB) input was darker sounding. I mean you plug a strat into the hi input and then you plug an LP into the low input, the strat input is brighter, and the padded input is darker ... with those two guitars it should be the other way around to compensate for the differences somewhat. I'm mean the typical Fender is what on the high side 1Meg input imepedance to ground, and the low is 68k to ground ... Yuck!

 

[Artie]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

One of the reasons I brought this question up was that sometimes you see a good deal on a high-output pup, and I was wondering how well it work to pad it down, to even it out a bit. For example, I've got a Duncan Distortion coming that I got pretty cheap. Also, I was thinking about using a Dimebucker in the bridge of my new Peavey Gen, to go along with the with the Cool Rails/Vintage Rails that I'm getting. This was simply to maintain the "rails" theme of the guitar. Since the Dimebucker is so "hot", I was thinking about something like using a Bill Lawrence Q-filter with it to pad its output a bit. (The Q-filter is nothing more than a .9 henry choke.) I wouldn't really care if it altered the sound somewhat, because it would just become a whole "new" pickup.

Anyway, its just an idea I toying with.

 

[Kent S.]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

One of the reasons I brought this question up was that sometimes you see a good deal on a high-output pup, and I was wondering how well it work to pad it down, to even it out a bit. For example, I've got a Duncan Distortion coming that I got pretty cheap. Also, I was thinking about using a Dimebucker in the bridge of my new Peavey Gen, to go along with the with the Cool Rails/Vintage Rails that I'm getting. This was simply to maintain the "rails" theme of the guitar. Since the Dimebucker is so "hot", I was thinking about something like using a Bill Lawrence Q-filter with it to pad its output a bit. (The Q-filter is nothing more than a .9 henry choke.) I wouldn't really care if it altered the sound somewhat, because it would just become a whole "new" pickup.

Anyway, its just an idea I toying with.

It will do a lot more than somewhat alter it's sound ... :saeek:
If you want to go that route I would suggest building some type of pad that switches out when that pup isn't selected, even if it's not ideal ... I still say the trimpot/cap thing would work well here. You must route it to a DPDT switch to get it out of the pup's path when not wanted though ... You should be able to obtain acceptable results with it though. That way you will always have the full output available from that pup if desired. A mid cut would work well also, however the amount of bass left over may not reduce the overall level to the degree required, same for the top end.

 

[Artie]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

Yeah, thats pretty much what I was thinking of doing. I don't know if I would leave that configuration, but it might be fun to experiment with.

I'll let you know how the whole thing pans out, if I do it.

 

[sanrafael]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

One of the reasons I brought this question up was that sometimes you see a good deal on a high-output pup, and I was wondering how well it work to pad it down, to even it out a bit. For example, I've got a Duncan Distortion coming that I got pretty cheap. Also, I was thinking about using a Dimebucker in the bridge of my new Peavey Gen, to go along with the with the Cool Rails/Vintage Rails that I'm getting. This was simply to maintain the "rails" theme of the guitar. Since the Dimebucker is so "hot", I was thinking about something like using a Bill Lawrence Q-filter with it to pad its output a bit. (The Q-filter is nothing more than a .9 henry choke.) I wouldn't really care if it altered the sound somewhat, because it would just become a whole "new" pickup.

Anyway, its just an idea I toying with.

I think you might be able pull the magnet out of the SD distortion and put in another kind. That could get the level down also.

 

[Kent S.]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

I think you might be able pull the magnet out of the SD distortion and put in another kind. That could get the level down also.

Yeah, and also change the entire tone, I thought that's what Art was trying to avoid. The magnetic field's strength and distribution has far wider reaching effects than just level ...

But Art, as Jimmie Hendrix said in *All Along the Watchtower* ...
***But you and I, We have been thru that ... And this is not our cause.
So let's stop talking falsely now, the hour's getting late ... * :cool3:

 

[Chi3f]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

you know the thread is getting deep when kent starts quoting hendrix lol

 

[sanrafael]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

Yeah, and also change the entire tone, I thought that's what Art was trying to avoid. The magnetic field's strength and distribution has far wider reaching effects than just level ...


Lowering the pup certainly changes the sound as well.
The effect of changing the magnet is a very interesting question. Here are a couple of "naive" statements that might be debatable:

1. When you pull a bar magnet out of a humbucker pup, and slide in another one of a different material you change only the strength of the magnetic field pattern. The directional pattern remains the same because it is detemined by the pole peices.

2. Changing the field strength changes the amount and character of the "string pulling", that is, the actual mode splitting that occurs with very strong fields, and more subtle effects at lower field strengths. The claim here is that this is the only significant effect of changing the magnet.

 

[Kent S.]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

you know the thread is getting deep when kent starts quoting hendrix lol

:laugh2: ... I've just always loved that quote,it really doesn't have anything to do with anything, I just saw a place to slip it in ...

 

[Kent S.]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

Yeah, and also change the entire tone, I thought that's what Art was trying to avoid. The magnetic field's strength and distribution has far wider reaching effects than just level ...


Lowering the pup certainly changes the sound as well.
The effect of changing the magnet is a very interesting question. Here are a couple of "naive" statements that might be debatable:

1. When you pull a bar magnet out of a humbucker pup, and slide in another one of a different material you change only the strength of the magnetic field pattern. The directional pattern remains the same because it is detemined by the pole peices.

2. Changing the field strength changes the amount and character of the "string pulling", that is, the actual mode splitting that occurs with very strong fields, and more subtle effects at lower field strengths. The claim here is that this is the only significant effect of changing the magnet.

I really couldn't comment one way or the other on that, I think that the magnetic field pattern does change a bit. I don't know though ...
The stronger field does have a choking effect on the harmonics of the string as well , as the tend the die out a bit faster. I think the dynamics of the string are a bit truer as well with a lower magnetic field strength.
I do find it interesting though that a stronger magnet does tend to have a brighter attack though, and a bit crisper response. Kinda the opposite of what you would imagine from the preceeding statement.
I wonder what the magnet change does to the inductance of the coil, if in fact it exerts a change there as well. That's Evans territory though, and not mine.

 

[sanrafael]

Re: Hey Kent. (Output attenuation question.)

Kent, A few months ago, I took a standard pickup slug and wound some wire directly on it, put a capacitor in parallel, and measured the resonant frequency. The next step was to put a strong magnet on one end of the slug, and measure again. Could not detect any difference. Not a definitive test, but at least indicating that the magnetic field through the core does not affect it in a really strong way. It seems that there could be more subtle effects that might make an audible difference, but I tend to doubt such things until definitely established (and I have been surprised more than a few times!).